under King Edward the Popish party renouncing it and on the Protestant part John Philpot Archdeacon of Winchester maintaining it to be Synodical because compiled by Autority and Commission from the Synod for saith he this House granted Autority to make Ecclesiastical and spiritual Laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty and concludes that the Catechisme and such Laws were truly said to be done by the Synod since they had saith he our Synodal Autority unto them committed Now as all Catechisms do so this did contein the Body of Doctrine answerable to the Articles of Reformation which no doubt were agreed on in that Synod and therefore rejected by the Popish party 10. This Synod as I suppose was not held till the fift of King Edward But the Injunctions that went out in the first year were provisional for the public exercise of Religion and Worship which was necessarily to be provided for in present and went no farther then those evident points above mentioned Like Injunctions we find sent out by Queen Mary in her own name and Autority for having suddenly dissolved the Convocation by her peremptory Mandate to Bishop Boner for that purpose in December She sent out the March following Injunctions not upon any Vote of the former Convocation touching Papal Supremacy Sacraments Priests-Marriage c. as we have them in Fox his Acts and Monuments 1. Mariae If it be said as usually they reply that she did but restore what was before established in the Church so we may say by the Injunctions of King Edward was restored the due Worship of God accordingly as it was established and used in the Ancient Church in a known tongue with Communion in both kindes without Image-worship all which were ruled cases in the Ancient Church And of those few Injunctions we may say farther for the warrant of them 11. Those Injunctions sent out by advice of Bishops and were generally received of all the Bishops Thirdly They were sent out by the Kings Autority upon the advise of sundry Bishops and other Learned men of this Land and generally received and put in practice by the Bishops in their several Diocesses Both these things are avouched expresly in the charge given in against Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester extant in Fox his Acts and Monuments to shew that he was the only Bishop that did not so readily conform as the rest did This also appears by the Letters of the Archbishop Cranmer to Boner Bishop of London to whom he sent the said Injunctions and by the letters of Boner to the Bishop of Westminster who then was Thirlby twice promoted in King Edwards dayes to other Bishops for the execution of the same Which Letters are to be seen also in Fox his Acts. 12. And so the Vniformimity of Publick prayer If we looke on farther to the Parliament held in the second and third year of the King we find in the first Chapter a Law for the Vniformity of Public prayer and Administration of the Sacraments expressing thus much That for the drawing up such an Order and Form the King appointed the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and certain of the most Learned and discreet Bishops and other learned men of this Realm there 's the fitness of the Persons for the Work having respect to the pure and sincere Christian Religion taught in the Scriptures and to the Vsages in the Primitive Church there 's the fitness of the rule they went by The which at this time by the aid of the Holy Ghost and with one Vniform agreement is by them concluded Wherefore the Lords Spiritual note that and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled considering the godly travel of the King and the Lord Protector in gathering the said Archbishop and Bishops and Learned men together the godly Prayers Orders and Rites in the said Book and the considerations of altering those things that be altered and reteining those things which be reteined in the said book and also the honour of God and the great quietness which is like to ensue upon the same do give his Highness most lowly thanks for the same and humbly pray it may be enacted c. What could be more sweetly begun by the King carried on by the Bishops received by all the Estates then this work was Now if there wanted a formal Synodical Vote yet was there in effect that which is equivalent to it the general reception of the thing done yea the Bishops not only received and put in practice what was commanded but did actually in Parliament give their consent there we find them all sitting and if all did not consent which is more then any can say yet the major part by far did undoubtedly for they continued as I observed above Num. 4. in their places unmolested all King Edwards dayes Neither can it make any real difference as to the justness of a Reformation whether it begin from a Vote of Bishops in Synod and so proceeding to the Sovereign Prince be by him received and established or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince moved by advice of faithful Bishops and so proceeding to the whole body of the Clergy or Pastors of the Church be by them generally received and put in practice according to the command of the Sovereign Autority It is true indeed that some of the Bishops were deprived but as I insinuated before their number was inconsiderable to the other and their deprivation was not till the end of the Kings third year at soonest which shews their compliance at first 13. Councel of Trents Rule for Reformation Now after all this it will be worth our observing what the Councel of Trent some years after in their Canons of Reformation in the Decree de celebrat Missae Sess 6. sub Pio 4. did confess and thought fit to redress Multa jam sive temporum vitio sive hominum incuriâ improbitate irrepsisse aliena à tanti sacrificii dignitate many things say they either through the iniquity of the Times or the carelesness and wickedness of Men have crept in far unmeet for the worthiness of so great a sacrifice and what were those things quae Avaritia vel superstitio induxit which covetousness or superstition hath brought in Then they give order for redress That the ordinary Bishops of the Place should de medio tollere take them clean away This was well spoken had they done it throughly Now what they thought fit to be done and did it but slightly was done fully in the Protestant Reformation and particularly in that under King Edward for the shameful nundination of Masses which Covetousness had brought in was clean taken away by taking away the manner and Trade of Romish Massings and reducing the free Ministration of the Sacrament the many abuses which Superstition had brought in were removed by restoring the public Liturgy in a known Tongue the celebration of the Communion in both
as it hath the advantage of Judgment above all Inferiour or privat persons so of Power too to proceed according to that Judgment against the obstinate No other means of restraint had the Ancient Church as was insinuated Sect. 13. of the former book To conclude This Vnappealable and not Infallible Autority as it cannot consist with the main Principle of Romish belief so may it well enough stand with any thing asserted by us and were it stated aright not in the Pope but in every National Church immediately and in a General Councel finally I suppose there needed not be any matter of difference about it And hitherto of Submission of Judgment and Practise to the Definitions and Constitutions of a Church CHAP. II. Of Reformation begun under Hen. 8. advanced under King Edward perfected under Queen Elizabeth and the warrantableness of it THat the English Reformation was not regular and warrantable but carried against the consent of the Bishops of this Land is the usual reproach of the Romanists It was infinuated in the 4. Section of the former book That the Reformation was begun under Hen. and perfected under Q. Elizabeth not without a just National Synod and that in the Reformation under Hen. 8. there was no displacing of Bishops but all was passed by general consent That late Romish Convert as he pretends himself to be that wrote the reproachful Pamphlet Entituled The Obit of Prelatic Protestancie took notice of what I had said and returns the reproach double upon us saying All the Bishops of this Nation were excluded and imprisoned when the Doctors party first decreed the breach so that they had no more a National Synod then Those that could congregate when they pleased as many of their own party and style it a Synod as the Presbyterians did So he pag. 136. We will consider then how the Reformation was begun carried on and perfected which will appear to be so done as the Romanist can have no just cause to reprove nor the Presbyterian or any Sectaries to pretend to the like 1. Reformation begun under Hen. 8. The First Reformation began under Hen. 8. in the ejection of Papal jurisdiction with some superstitious abuses And here I must first say and desire the Reader to take notice that to this first main point of Reformation the ejecting of that forrein Jurisdiction there needed no vote of National Synod or consent of Bishops the King himself being a sufficient and competent Judg in that cause of Vindicating his own Rights upon which that Papal jurisdiction was a plain Usurpation And therefore the like had been often done by Kings of this Realm before Hen. Not without the Vote of a National Synod 8. putting their Subjects under Premunire that did acknowledg such an usurped power or had recourse to Rome in any cause or matter of Jurisdiction But Secondly we can say and that most truly that it was carryed with the general consent of the Bishops of this Land in ful Synod decreeing not a breach but the casting off and renouncing of Papal supremacy upon which the first breach followed and so Saunders calls it Schisma Henricianum King Henries Schisme 2. Now if Romanists will say Those Bishops and the rest of the Clergy assembled in that Synod were of their party because most of the Romish Doctrine was still reteined then let them say that their Party first made the Breach and cease to lay any imputation upon us for it or for doing the like upon greater cause under Queen Elizabeth however their Party or Ours they must confess the first-breach was then made and the Reformation then begun and that by full consent of the Bishops of this Nation in full Synod 3. If again they say as usually it is said by them of the Romish party That Synod was not free the Bishops and the rest being compelled by fear to vote that which they after repented of and retracted under Queen Mary To say nothing of the liberty of Papal Councels where none can speak freely without note of Heresie or danger of Inquisition it is apparent they voted the like again three years after and it is strange that the Passion of Fear should continue so long or that so many learned men should not in 16. years more see their error and retract it till there came a Queen that discovered her self to be of another mind But if they were compelled through fear so to Vote what compelled them so to write and to make good by such forcible Arguments what they had Voted as the most learned of them did what compelled them I say but the Evidence of Truth and if they voluntarily retracted what they Voted in Synod why did they not as voluntarily answer their own Arguments They are yet to be seen and will remain as a clear Evidence of the warrantableness of that Synodicall Vote upon which the first Breach followed 4. Reformation under K Edward Proceed we now to King Edwards Time under whom the Reformation was carried on and the Breach continued And here if we make enquiry how it stood with the Bishops of this Land we find the two Archbishops Bishops at Liberty Cranmer and Holdgate together with Thirlby and divers other Bishops made in King Henries time continuing in their places unmolested all King Edwards reign As for those few who at last were removed viz. Boner Gardiner Heath Day Vessey None of them were imprisoned till the third year of the King except Gardiner and Boner who for some Misdemeanors felt a short restraint from which upon Submission being released they enjoyed their Bishopricks till the end of the Kings third year Neither can I find that any of them during that time was excluded from sitting in Parliament there being indeed no cause for it for They had all taken the Oath of Supremacy to the renouncing of Papal power and Jurisdiction the form of which Oath is set down in Fox his Acts and Monuments They did also generally receive those few injunctions sent out for Reformation as we shall hear presently I find in the first and second Parliaments in King Edwards Time the Lords Spiritual and Temporal sitting and enacting and John Stow gives us a Copy of Stephen Gardiners letter sent out of the Tower in the third year of the King for then he was imprisoned to the Lords of the Councel Sitting in Parliament wherein he sues for his Liberty that he might do his duty in Parliament then sitting being a Member of the same This plainly shews the only hinderance of his sitting there was want of Liberty and that he only of all the Bishops was kept from thence That which Master Fox saith in the beginning of his story of King Edward that several prisons is spoken by Anticipation as other things also there insinuated that were after done throughout the following course of the Kings reign 5. National Synod If now it be asked where is the judgment of a
National Synod to warrant King Edwards Reformation I have many things to say I. What I speak of the English Reformation that it was not done without the judgment of a National Synod did chiefly relate to the Synod under King Henry which as I said began the Reformation and to the Synod under Queen Elizabeth which perfected it In the first was the main Annoyance and cause of Corruption in the Church removed by casting out the usurped Papal Jurisdiction with some dependances of it but in the latter Synod the whole work carried on under King Edw according to the difficulties and shortness of his reign was compleated shewing it self in an Uniform body of Doctrine voted and published in the 39. Articles of this Church 6. II. Title of Supreme Head For the work done in King Edwards time if any thing did run out of Square through the swelling Title of Supreme Head stretched a little perchance by some beyond his Line the thanks are first due to Those whom they of the Popish party account theirs I mean those Bishops and Clergy under Hen. 8. who may seem at least in words and expression to have over-done their work not in that part which they denyed to the Pope for none could have written better against that usurped Papal Supremacie then Bishop Gardiner Tonstal and others but in that which they attributed to the King And therefore the Parliament declaring for the Crown in this point of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction did relate to the Vote and Acknowledgment of the Clergie Seeing that all Autority of Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings Highness as Supreme Head and so acknowledged by the Clergie of this Realm Be it therefore Enacted c. 1 EDW 6. c. 2. that if they of the Parliament went too far in their attributions and expressions we may see whom they followed 7. VVhether abused in this business of Reformation Now considering what was already granted under Henr. 8. and sworn to again under Edw 6. by the Bishops and Clergie of this Nation considering also the King although of admirable piety and understanding beyond his years yet being under age and so under Protection it could be no marvel if the power of those Lay-persons who ruled in chief had thereby the greater influence upon the Affairs of the Time And however the Kings Autority under pretence of that Title and Jurisdiction as it seems was abused in disposing of Church-means and diverting them to private gain yet I cannot find it to have been abused in this Reformation as to the point of Gods Worship and Religion it self but must acknowledge the great and good Providence of God in it that notwithstanding the difficulties and prejudices of the time the business of Religion was fairly carryed on and that is the third thing I have to say That the Reformation under King Edward to the abolishing of Image-Worship the restoring of the Liturgie in a known Tongue and Communion in both kinds with that which followed thereupon the abolishing of Romish Massings for herein was the main of K. Edwards Reformation was warrantably advanced and carryed on For the clearing of which as to the Authority that did it I have these things to say 8. First Synodical Vote how necessary in this bufiness Reformation of Gods Worship may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical Vote Synods indeed are the most prudential and safe way of determining Church-Affairs where there is not just and apparent cause of fearing more danger from the persons which are to be convocated and the times in which they are to assemble To this purpose sounds that known complaint of Greg. Nazianzen That he saw no good end of Councels which he spoke not absolutely but with respect to the Times and Persons as they stood then affected by reason of the prevailing faction of the Arrians who by their number and cunning made advantage often of the Councels held in those times Now seeing the office of Bishops and Pastors of the Church as to this point of Reformation is directive either in or out of Synod and the more convenient way of the two for giving out that direction is by their meeting and consulting in Synod therefore the Prince whose power or office is Imperative and Coactive for establishing by Laws and Penalties what is evidenced to Him hath great reason to receive his direction from the Pastors of the Church assembled in Synod But he is not simply and always bound to take his direction thus by any Law of God or Man for if by the Law of God he stand bound to establish within his own Dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and learned men of the Church to be the Law of Christ such as were the forementioned points of Reformation apparently consonant to Scripture and primitive Antiquity shall he not perform his known duty till the Vote of a Major part of a Synod give him leave to do it The change of Religion for the worse is stil charged upon the evil Kings in the Old Testament and the Reforming it again is recorded to the praise of good Kings which shews this Obligation of Duty upon every Prince and the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah who were more forward in the Reformation of Gods Worship then the Priests do warrant the forward piety of our yong Josiah K. Edward And this is also approved by that which many Christian Emperors and Kings have to their great praise done in the business of Religion without or before the calling of a Councel though not without the counsel and advice of faithful Bishops and learned Men. Of this point more below when to speak of Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things Neither can we say the Sovereign Prince is bound in the way of Prudence alwaies to receive his direction from a Vote in Synod especially when there is just cause of fear as above said but he may have greater reason to take advice from persons free from the exceptions of Factions Interests to which the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious And how far this was considerable in the beginning of King Edwards reign or whether such fear made them forbear to put it at first to a Synodical vote I cannot say but this I have farther to say 9. Injunctions sent out at first by the King Secondly In Reformation of Religion we must put a difference between provisional Injunctions sent out for the publick exercise of Religion or Worship and the Body or comprehension of Doctrine or Uniformity in points of Religion In order to the latter a Body of Doctrine I find there was a Synod held under King Edward The Acts of it I have not seen but it appears to have provided for Doctrinals for it is spoken of in the Convocation held 1. Mariae Where in the Act of the second day as Fox in his Acts and Monuments hath related a dispute arises about a Catechism published in the name of the Synod
kinds and by taking clean away the Worship of Images And all this was done by the advice and travel of Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church under a Pious King What exception then can there be It may perchance be said that in the close of that Decree this power of reforming is allowed to the Bishops of the place ut Delegatis sedis Apostolicae as to the Delegates of the Apostolic See Yea there is stil the mischief and hinderance of all good Reformation in the Christian Church Deus non erit Deus c. God shall not be God except man please as Tertul. said in his Apol. and Truth shall not be Truth except the Pope please nor God Worshipped after his own Will unless the Pope will too 14. The warrantableness of K. Edwards Reformation To conclude Lay now the Premisses together and see the Warrantableness of the Reformation under King Edward both for the Thing done and the Autority by which it was done The Thing done was for the general what the Councel of Trent thought fit to be done the removing of some things which were crept in by the corruption of the Times by the carelesness and iniquity of Men Things which Covetousness and Superstition the two Breeders of all Popish abuses had brought in Things for the particular so evident by Scripture and usage of Primative Church the warrantable Rule of Reformation which they went by as above noted in the statute of Parliament Num. 12. that nothing can be more So for the Autority by which this was done It was begun by a good and gracious King upon the advice and direction of sundry learned and discreet Bishops was carried on and managed by divers Bishops and other learned Men of this Realm as was also said in the forementioned Statute and generally received by all the Estates of the Land and accordingly confirmed and Established by King and Parliament Such was the Condition and Warrant of that Reformation which as no Romanist can justly reprove Sectaries cannot pretend to the like so no Sectaries can pretend to the like whether we consider the evidence of the Things or Abuses reformed according to Scripture and usage of Antiquity or the Autority by which that Reformation was begun carried on and managed and lastly confirmed and established Of all which there is a great failing in the pretended Reformations of Sectaries yea in that which the Presbyterians undertook who of all other pretend most to regularity and Order 15. Reformation under Q Eliz. We are at last come down to Queen Elizabeths reign under whom we said the Reformation was perfected And here we are to enquire too of the Imprisoning of Bishops and look after a National Synod We acknowledge that divers Bishops were Imprisoned and which is more deprived too and justly both as will appeare hereafter upon consideration of their offence Here we must first note that there was no design in the Imprisoning or depriving them to make way for the holding of a Synod nor any necessity was there of it in order to that end for if we reckon that on the one part there were six Bishops remaining to whom the Queens Letters for the consecration of Matthew Parker were directed and many Bishopricks actually void at Queen Maries death which being supplied there was no fear that the Popish Bishops who were very suddenly reduced to Nine by death or quitting the Land should make the Major part had the business of Reformation been put at first to a Synodical Vote 16. Her Injunctions As for the Injunctions sent out before it came to a Synod they were the same for substance with those of King Edward upon the Evidence and Warrant as we heard above Yet such was her tender care that all Persons doubtful should have satisfaction and be brought to some good and charitable agreement as in her Declaration set down in Stow that for this very purpose before any thing of Religion should be established by Parliament she appointed a Conference to be held publickly at Westminster between learned Persons of both sides as more amply will be shewn below against Champny cap. 9. Again those Injunctions were but provisional Orders as I may call them for the present exercise of Religion the whole Doctrine being after concluded and drawn up in a just and Lawful Synod 17. A Synod A Lawful National Synod it was in and by which whatever belongs to the Uniformity of Doctrine and Religion was defined drawn up and published in 39. Articles The great difference twixt this Synod and the Presbyterian Assembly however the reproaching Romanists rank them together wil appear upon these considerations Presbyterians cannot pretend to the like I. They that took upon them to exclude or remove our Bishops had not power either to call a Synod or to deprive a Bishop and that is the first irregularity viz. Usurpation of Power II. The cause pretended for the removing of our Bishops was not any offence against their Duty as Subjects or against their Office as Bishops but meerly for their very Office because they were Bishops and that was purely Schismatical III. The Persons taken in to make up their Assembly did not pretend to succeed our Bishops so removed in their Power and Office and so it was a Synod clean out of the way of the Church sitting and concluding by a power taken to themselves and therefore also plainly Schismatical Every one of these irregularities nulls the lawfulness of an Ecclesiastical Synod But none of these can be charged upon us for the Popish Bishops that remained obstinate were removed by due Autority upon just cause viz. their offence against the duty of Subjects and of their own Office as will appear below where their deprivation shall be examined against Champny c. 9. Lastly the places void either by deprivation of these or death of others were supplyed by Bishops lawfully ordained as is also maintained against Champny who together with the old Bishops remaining after King Edwards dayes and the rest of the Clergy of the Land made up a due and Lawful Ecclesiastical Synod 18. Of Regal Supremacy in order to Reformation and Church affairs Having thus far spoken of the care and travel of our Kings and Queen in this work of reforming Religion and Gods Worship within this Land it might seem convenient to say something more of the Supremacy or of the power which by vertue of their Supremacy Princes have and to shew how in this business of Reformation and Church-affairs it may be so bounded that it intrench not upon or infringe the power and office of the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church But seeing we found the Power and Office of the one and the other severed and distinct throughout the Reformations spoken of in this Chapter for we found Bishops advising counselling and the Prince commanding appointing convocating them to the work then again Bishops with other learned Men so appointed and
Bluet and Bluet from Master Neale and Master Neale from I know not whom nor he neither Only he tells us that one Master Constable received it from Stow himself who acknowledged so much in private but durst not publish it Be it on Master Constables account whether he wrongs Stow or no We know what advantage they make of such stories confidently reported to entertain and confirm their Proselytes withall But setting aside the public Records that shew the place and manner of their Ordination and how they were at several times Ordained this story betrayes it self many wayes First in that it pretends Scory alone to have Ordained them for as Master Mason here noted who can imagine that the other three Barlo Coverdale and Hodskinson who desired the advancement of the cause should decline the Action especially when the Penalty was a Premunire according to the 25. of Hen. 8. cap. 20. or that Parker an Archbishop Elect would have been Ordained by one when the other three were in the Queens Letters for his Consecration as well as Scory and as willing and at hand Secondly that they should make choice of such a place a Tavern for so sacred an Action which would shew them to be Madmen and fitter for Bedlam then Bishopricks when as Churches and Chappels were open to them as Mason noted Champny pretends they knew Landaff would not be brought to their Churches Very like when he notwithstanding continued in the Church of England all his life time after and held his Bishoprick to his death but if he scrupled to come into our Churches why should they think he would meet them at a Tavern or why make choice of a Tavern rather then some other privat though common place The question then is whether Landaff was so good a fellow to approve of a meeting there or whether Champney was in Wine when he wrote this or the Reader will be such a Fool as to believe it As for Parker Grindal and the other who are thus defamed their lives and manner of Conversation before and after did sufficiently recommend them to all men for persons Learned Grave Sober Temperat Lastly let me observe how this story betrays it self in the strange Form of their Ordination and must either conclude those grave Personages to be Madmen again that having the Form of Ordination used in King Edwards dayes and commanded by the Law would or durst use any other especially so ridiculous one as is here reported or els condemn the raisers of this report of sensless impudency and the believers of it of notorious folly 4. But we are yet again call'd back to answer a Negative argument from John Stow who hath omitted to speak any thing of the consecration of this Archbishop And why should that be so strange Because Stow doth not usually admit any memorable thing done at London and all Chroniclers use to be very diligent in Recording all Innovations in States and this Stow was punctual in describing the reception consecration and enstalment of Card. Pool which yet was but after the wonted manner it is then very strange he should say nothing of the Consecrating of this new Archbishop after the New Fashion not seen in England before and the more strange this because Stow is known to have born great respect to Mat. Parker There must needs be other cause of such wilful silence besides forgetfulness to this purpose he pag. 503 c. As for Card. Pools reception and consecration Stow doth not fuse describere describe it at large as Champny sayes but only mentions it as done and considering that Chroniclers use to be punctual in describing all the Pageants that are shewn at the entrance or entertainment of Princes I marvel he did not enlarge himself in relating the manner how this great Cardinal such a special person comming upon such a special errand with Legatine power to reconcile and bring back the whole Kingdome to the Chu of Rome was received consecrated and enstalled which no question was set off with all the holy Pageantry of the Romish pomp Whereas the Consecration of Protestant Bishops being now more simply and homely though more Apostolical with few but innocent Ceremonies did not afford matter so much for a Chronicle as a Register One thing more was special in the Cardinals entrance which Stow notes The same day saith he that Docter Cranmer his predecessour was burnt the Cardinal sang his first Mass A good beginning One was burning the other singing But what if Stow professed so much respect to Archbishop Parker was this the only kindness he could do his friend to tell the Kingdom what it knew that he was Archbishop That respect and honour he bore the Archbishop if he had meant to shew it would have rather invited him to be copious in setting out his personal vertues and endowments which seeing he hath not once mentioned why should we marvell at his silence in the other And could there be done any thing at London more memorable and of more concernment in the way of the Church or a greater innovation in Champney's judgment then the first Synod held in the Queens reign where Uniformity of Doctrine and Religion drawn up in 39. Articles was concluded and published yet is it not once mentioned by Stow. It is the business of State not of the Church which affords work for this and other Chroniclers 5. The Consecration of Bishop Scory and Coverdale Next he endeavours to prove that Scory and Coverdale two other Ordainers of Parker were not consecrated themselves either after the old Roman or new English way and thinks he convinces it evidently thus The Ordinals saith he or old way of consecration were abolished by the Parliament of 2. and 3. of King Edward The new Form established by the Parliament of the 5. and 6. of the same King but the two former Ordainers were consecrated according to Masons records Aug. 30. 1551. that is five months before the new Form was set out and therefore by no Form in force even according to the Laws of this Realm So he pag. 510. This argument at the first appearance seems pressing and Champny doth not a litle set by it By what Form From hence saith he inevitably it is concluded that those two were never consecrated indeed and therefore not Parker as is pretended whereupon he concludes Masonum protervum inverecundum that Mason was obstinately shameless in avouching Parkers due consecration pag. 511. But I shall easily make appear the weakness of this argument as raised upon a meer mistake either through his inadvertency of what he might have observed in the Statutes or his wilfull concealment of what he did see The case stands thus It is true that the Ordinals are named with other superstitious books and with them abolished in the Parliament of 2. and 3. of Edward 6. and true also that the form of Ordination after agreed on was confirmed in the Parliament of the 5. and 6.
offenders against the Queens Majesty and their own Office 3. Their refusing to Crown the Queen For if it be the Office of the Bishops of this Land to crown the undoubted Prince what do they deserve who having acknowledged Her Right in Parliament declared by the mouth of the Archbishop of York then Chancellour and at Her coming to London been all of them except Boner graciously received by Her and admitted to kiss her hand do after upon pretence of Religion refuse to set the Crown upon Her head Again when it was Her desire and purpose to have the exercise of Religion setled as it was in King Edwards dayes and might have done it upon the same Evidence and Warrant of which above cap. 2. yet she caused a Conference between the best learned on both sides to be held at Westminster A Conference appointed the Parliament then sitting for the satisfying of persons doubtful and for the knowledg of the Truth in matters of difference that so there might be some good and charitable agreement These are the words of the Queens Declaration Also that Conference was to be held before the Lords and other Members of Parliament for the better satisfying their judgments in concluding such Laws as might depend thereupon as it is there also specified 4. The Popish Partie thought it at first reasonable and by the Arch-bishop of York gave their answer that they were ready to render an account of their faith and did accordingly choose some Bishops with other Doctors to be Actors in the Conference Their obstinat perversness and agreed to the Orders set down for the more quiet and effectual managing of the business But the very first day it appeared they meant not to stand to the Order first agreed on which was to give in writing to the other party what reasons and proofs they had for each point whereof being fairly admonished by the Lord Keeper who was appointed Moderator of the Action not to judg of the Controversie but to see to the orderly proceeding and by other Lords they promised to give in the next day what was said by Doctor Cole in their behalf and what they had farther to say but that day being come they would neither one way nor other neither by writing nor speech declare what they had to say but only returned them this answer The Catholic Faith is not to be call'd in question And this was the issue of that Conference the passages of which are punctually set down in Stow. 5. Now if it be the Office of Bishops to teach all things commanded by Christ as we find Champny arguing for them out of S. Mat. 28.20 against the Regal Supremacy in his 6. chap. and to shew us that he hath commanded them If a Bishop must be by Saint Pauls Canon 1 Tim. 3.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach which implies not only Ability of which other Bishops who ordain him must judg but also Readiness to teach of which the Queen and whole Parliament who in vain expected it from them might very well judg what then should we conclude of those Bishops who were not ready nay obstinately refused to do it when their Soveraign Prince and the Estates of the Realm were ready and desirous to hear For the satisfying of their judgments and consciences and for the bringing about some good and charitable agreement What can we I say conclude of them but that they highly offended against the Queen and whole Kingdome and against the duty of their own Office being also self-condemned in wilful receding from the Orders they had agreed to as most reasonable The Protestant party were ready to say with Saint Paul we commend our selves to every mans conscience by the manifestation of the Truth 2. Cor. 4.7 But the Popish party did in effect say with the proud Pharisees This people know not the Law are cursed S. Jo. 7.49 and so leave them in their ignorance 6. Add to this their obstinate opposition to all reforming of Worship and Religion from such evidenced Errors and corruptions as Image-Worship Prayers in an unknown tongue Communion under one kind If any of the Preists had withstood the reforming and purging of the Temple undertaken by Hezekiah and Josiah and not consented to the restoring of the due worship of God or to serve in the Temple according to that Form of Worship had it been just to continue them in the Priests Office or to remove them And was there any reason that the Queen according to the power given Her of God undertaking the reformation of Religion and Worship should continue those as Pastors in the Church which refused to teach or give a reason of their Doctrine or to accord to any reformation of the known abuses in Gods Worship or to serve in the Church according to the form of Worship duly established 7. Now lest any should think the like might be answered by those that some years ago cast out our Bishops as opposers of their Reformation I must still remember the Reader they cannot make the like defence for their pretended Reformation whether we consider the Abuses to be Reformed or the Autority by which in neither of these was their attempt answerable to that just Reformation that cast out Popery and some of the Popish Bishops as above seen c. 2. To these two particulars of their not Crowning the Queen and nor holding the Conference Champny in his 15. Chap. pag. 534. replies 1. That neither of these was objected to them and therefore no cause of their deprivation But this is more then he can affirm and altogether improbable considering their presumptuous disobedience and I find in Stow that upon their abrupt breaking up the Conference White and Watson the two Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were immediatly sent to the Tower for their extraordinary peremptoriness and all the rest bound daily to attend the pleasure of the Queens Councel save Feckenham Abbot of Westminster who only shewed himself reasonable and very willing to have the Conference go orderly and peaceably on and therefore had his Liberty Neither is the question here what was objected to them but what they deserved The objecting of their refusal of the Oath was enough for their deprivation by the Statute newly Enacted yet their presumptuous demeanour in the other particulars was no small aggravation of their offence and might be too of the Queens just displeasure against them 2. Champny allegeth two examples the One in relation to the Conference the Other to the Crowning the first is of Saint Ambrose that refused to dispute with the Arrians But this is far wide from the business in hand whether we look at the Subject Matter of the dispute which with Saint Ambrose was a chief fundamental point the Deity of our Saviour Christ and newly declared in a General Councel with us the Subject of the Conference were certain points which as held by Protestants are so far from being against the